Personal thoughts: Reviewing and Responding

First and foremost, this is a writing site, and most of us are here to learn and grow as writers, and to help others to do likewise. We are all encouraged by each other, and by the friendships that form, but this is not the primary purpose of a writing site, important though that may be.

We generally desire to improve our writing, to sharpen our writing skills and techniques, and to express well all that is on our hearts to express. We write what is in our hearts, what is meaningful or important to us – and we are all different, all unique. Some, of course, write simply for the pleasure of writing and self-expression, with no other goals, and that is fine.

A value which is important to me, regardless of our motivations for being on this site, is respect, in our writing, in our reviewing, and in our responding to reviews.

Reviewing brings to my mind several thoughts.

Reviewing should always be done with honesty and respect combined, whether one agrees with what the writer has expressed or not. There is no place for rudeness, rage, or personal attack, all of which I have experienced because someone has disagreed with what I have written. Disagreeing is fine; disrespect is not.

Praise: deserved commendation for excellence in writing, or in some aspect of the writing.

Flattery: unjustified commendation for less than excellent writing. This is often offered to writers because it is easy and brings quick financial reward. It also (usually) ensures flattery in return. It does not require thinking about how to improve the writing piece offered and will frequently overlook obvious errors and inconsistent or poor writing.

Flattery is also offered because people don’t want to hurt the feelings of friends. While this is commendable, an appropriate review will “speak the truth in love.” Honesty plus respect.

Opportunity: a springboard to offer one’s own experiences or thoughts on whatever the writing is about, without any relevance or reference to the work being reviewed. The reviewer is less interested in helping the writer to improve than on his/her own personal sharing. While there is a place for helpful sharing, and that is part of the fine  and precious friendships we develop, care should be taken that it is not self-absorption, and does not replace a review.

Carelessness: Not checking the purpose of the writing. Offering a two-star review for a poem, proclaiming that it is “too short” and “needs expanding”, is inappropriate for an eight-word poem written for a contest requiring eight words or fewer.

Similarly in prose writing where a minimum word count is needed, there is an expectation that reviewers who do not like longer pieces will refrain from reviewing rather than denigrate the writer by lowering the rating for no justifiable reason. However, if there is repetition and rambling simply to fulfil the word requirements, there is an opportunity to provide a helpful suggestion in an appropriate way. Honesty plus respect.

Inconsistency: Inconsistency is confusing, and not helpful to writers.

Rude or angry words spoken, because the reviewer has a different viewpoint, but a five-star review is given - this is inappropriate. If the writing is worth five stars, offer them. Change the tone of the review by reviewing the quality of the writing itself, not the theme.

If it is not worth five stars, based on the writing, offer suggestions to improve the writing. It is not the reviewer’s place to berate or rebuke the writer for writing what is important and meaningful to him/her.

Conversely, positive words offered, and no suggestions for improvement, combined with a low rating – this too needs a rethink. Note that sometimes a low ranking is unintentionally offered – we have all done it. If the words and the low ranking don’t match, I think it is appropriate for the writer to ask for reconsideration. Most people are apologetic for such a slip-up, and generally change the ranking to an appropriate level to match the review.

Allocation of six stars: This is always highly contentious.

To my mind a six-star review should only be given if the work is carefully edited for writing technique, logic, development and progression of thought, ideas, or theme, and has meaningful content which lifts it to an extremely high level. It may use original and creative imagery, or the content may be extremely moving. It doesn't need to be perfect, but shouldn't be shoddy.

I do not believe it is justifiable or right to offer six stars for undeserving writing simply because the writer has been/is going through some difficult experiences. Personal support and encouragement can and should be offered, but that is not the role of six stars. Similarly, six stars should not be offered to friends simply because one is thereby hoping for a reciprocal gesture.

Again, this rating requires and emphasises the outstanding quality of the writing. Excellence is important, otherwise, the value of receiving such a rating is diminished.

Responding to reviews can also be problematic. It also takes time, thought, and care.

If reviewers attempt to offer a helpful and respectful review, their honesty can be perceived as an insult, if the writer prefers the flattering type of reviews. Sometimes reviewers’ thoughts are misconstrued, and they are responded to with indignant self-defence, or even personal attack.

If the writer doesn’t like the review, s/he should simply thank the reviewer for his/her thoughts, and leave it be. The choice is the writer’s, to accept or reject the suggestion, but it has taken the reviewer time to offer the help, and that should at least be acknowledged with respect. That writer may be one who simply wants to write, but is not seeking to improve.

However, sometimes the reviewer is able to see more clearly than the writer where a work can be improved, and the writer would do well to consider another viewpoint before dismissing it out of hand. Writers should aim to not be ego-driven, and certainly not use a reviewer’s thoughts as the springboard for an on-going argument.

It is surely appropriate to at least acknowledge and/or thank the reviewer for spending time thinking about the piece. Sometimes the suggested edit is carried out, but no word of thanks is offered. Sometimes the suggestion is ignored completely. Good manners show respect for the efforts of the reviewer.

Personally, I dislike cut-and-paste responses, even with an odd word changed occasionally, particularly if I have asked a question or respectfully offered a suggestion or picked up a typo. However, I understand that in some circumstances, cut and paste responses are unavoidable, and that is perfectly fine.

The influence of rankings: It is difficult sometimes to know whether a writer aspires to excellence in writing regardless of rankings, or whether the writer is dominated by a desire to be high in the rankings, regardless of merit. Rankings are more important to some than others. And there is a spectrum of positions in between.

My personal view is that it is relatively easy to rise in the rankings by various methods, but one can only experience satisfaction if one knows the rank attained is by the quality of his/her work, and that the position is earned on merit.

High payments for reviews will clearly attract more reviewers, as will frequent postings, regardless of literary merit, and each of these will have an impact on rankings. Each writer has to work through the process and decide for him/herself where his priorities lie, both in terms of payment and in terms of frequency of postings, and the decision will depend on time and personal circumstances. It should remain free from judgement by others, as no-one else has walked in their shoes.

Having said that, there are several skilled writers, high in the rankings, and deservedly so, who maintain consistently both an amazing output of writing and high-quality work as well. These are worthy of genuine praise and full respect.

Personally, I go for fewer postings, but I try to ensure quality. I am also happy to pay well for longer postings, to reward reviewers for their increased time and effort spent on an honest review – and I do want honesty rather than flattery.

I hope my thoughts on these areas will be helpful. They are based on my personal experiences and preferences, and any perceived negative comments are not targeting any specific individuals, but rather general observations of trends.

This is, or should be, a place where we can give and receive honest and helpful feedback offered with thought, care and respect.

In general, most of us want this to be a writing site of excellence, as well as a safe community of supportive people, a place of mutual encouragement and help, a place where we can learn and grow in our writing if that's our goal, and in all the various other ways which enrich life.